Dave Holt

Dave,

This looks like a superb layout in the making. I just love the blackened urban grittiness of the viaduct scene - your earlier Clecklewyke layout is one of my favourites at S4 Soc do's. Will we get the chance to see Bradford NW, or is it a permanent layout?

I take your point about making soot encrusted stone-work too black. I've probably fallen into this trap on Delph, but my memory of pre-smokeless zones was of a very blackened appearance in deed. Perhaps some very light washes of a grey/brown colour might reduce the blackness - although I'm reluctant to set about Peter L's buildings too radically in case I ruin them!

You use of foam board for the cottages is most instructive. I've got a large area of cobbles to represent in the goods yard and miles of stone retaining walls, which don't suit the use of embossed plastic because they aren't nice, straight or rectangular shapes but are curved to fit the ground profile. This definately looks the way to go and much less messy than scribing plaster, which was my reluctant route chosen before, so thanks very much for the inspiration.

Looking forward to reading further posts, as an when (I only make glacial progress, too!).

Dave.

Interesting to see your wheeled transport frames/trollies. I have plans for something similar for my tiny effort, if it ever reaches a fit state to take to exhibitions. As a matter of interest, do you use a tail-lift truck or ramps for loading/inloading. Any access problems ar exhibition halls?

Best wishes for an enjoyable & reliable time at Ally Pally. Sadly, I won't be able to attend due to prior commitments - some time in the future, for sure!

Dave.

Super looking layout, book cases and all!

I really enjoy your posts and the photos are very evocative. I never went to Peterborough, but my father took me a few times to Retford to see the ECML in the mid to late 1950's, pacifics & V2's racing through - very exiting for a small boy brought up next to a secondary line in Lancashire!

Regarding the photograph and question of derailment, I don't like to be too contrary, especially to the layout owner, but I must say that to me the open switch blade set for the wrong road is clearly visible in front of the leading bogie wheel (LH as viewed, RH for the loco). As the point is trailing for that train, I can only assume that either the wheels rode up over the rails and dropped back on or the weight of the loco forced the blades across enough for the train to run through.

The buildings that Peter has made are as good as we have come to expect and I'm please that he's also making buildings for my layout.

Keep it coming!

Dave.

I do like the general look of your mill building - i think you've got the windows spot on.

I notice you say it's inspired by Forest Mill in Bacup - did that only have 3 storeys? I ask because the style of the mill is from the early days - small windows with fairly thick support pillars between - and these early mills were generally quite tall compared with their length & breadth - often 5 or 7 floors, for spinning, at least - 3 floors would be quite rare, though not unknown. They would definitely had pitched roofs - either an overall hipped type or perhaps multiple ridges. Flat roofs came later, generally in association with much larger window area and brick construction on a steel frame.

Weaving mills are normally only single storey with a north-light roof, so perhaps your mill could be for one of the associated trades such as cotton waste?

The layout looks to be coming along nicely, so you must be very pleased with it.

Looking forward to further progress reports,

Dave.

Duncan,

Yes, there's some surprising features on view for a basically Midland engine. In particular, the 3 bar slide bar and cross-head arrangement - based on Gresley Pacific, I believe, but also very similar the eventual BR Standard practice. The motion bracket looks incredibly flimsy with almost no vertical stiffness as even the rear vertical was cut away to clear the radius rods in their lower positions.

If you do create a replica, I'd be most interested, as would several others, judging from previous responses.

Sorry to Michael for hi-jacking his thread somewhat!

Dave.

Thinking about doing valve gear for this engine, the GA gives alot of the details. The one thing you can't see is the motion support bracket, which I would assume was at the ends of the slide bars with extension pieces to then support the expansion links?

Here's, hopefully, a better image of the drawing.

The motion bracket is a mainly horizontal plate (well, sloping to be parallel with the piston rod), with some up-standing ribs including at the rear end where the expansion link trunion supports are attached. At the front end, in plan, the motion plate extends forward roughly level with the front face of the lubricator. It's then cut away towards the loco centre line to clear the combination levers.

Hope this helps.

Dave.

By coincidence, I'm reading Eric Langridge's(?) "Under 10 CME's - Vol 1" at the moment and he did a lot of the design work on these locos, including the valve gear layout, and has quite a bit to say about them.

As Larry has said, excellent boiler (based on the LNWR G2a) and modern, long travel valve gear - let down by the axle boxes and crank pins inherited from the 4F.

It's correct to say that where possible, standard parts were incorporated into new designs to minimise tooling and spares holding costs. EL explains that although the axleboxes were susequently criticised and proved to the the Achilles heal, space considerations made anything much better difficult in the space available - especially with Stephenson's gear requiring 4 eccentrics. One way to improve bearing area would have been to increase the journal diameter, but this would be non-standard and mean new box design, larger frame cut-outs and horn-guide castings - all adding cost and weight. In this case, the axle loadings were less than the 4F and the piston loads about the same, so the existing boxes and crank pins were thought to be adequate. I also suspect that, at the time the design was being done, the problems with the 4F's hadn't really started to become apparent.

As Larry says, any thoughts of solving the problems with the Austin 7's were quashed by Stanier's 8F's and later by the influx of the gorgeous WD's!!!!

Michael, if you do decide on inside valve gear (preferable working), perhaps you could get it etched and sell interested parties (like me!) a spare one to use in our Gibson kits?

Dave.

Here's a drawing of the valve-gear

Austin 70140.pdf

Hope it helps.

Regarding the RH injector - it was an exhaust injector. I've checked in my Gibson kit and find it is represented in a very, very basic form on the white metal pipe casting, as a sort of blob near the "S" bend. Brassmasters do a rather better representation of the LMS style exhaust injector in both white metal and brass, although I don't know if it's available as a spare part.

Don't forget that the bottom of the smoke box isn't completely circular, but slightly flattened to clear the inside valve chests. Coachman pointed this out in his thread on the subject or to me, anyway!

Dave.

Picking up from Mike's dimensions, according to the LMS Derby GA drawing, 29-11170, the distance from the front coupled axle to the inside of the visible part of the front buffer beam is 7' 0" with the buffer beam 1" thick. The 6' 0" dimension to the rear drag beam is to the outside. Again the beam is 1" thick.

At the front, the frames actually stop short at 6' 6" from the front axle, as the buffer beam was actually a 6" thick (outside) hollow section (possibly with wood between the front and back plates?).

Hope this helps solve the "how long are the frames?" question.

Anyway, whatever the precise dimensions, I think both Larry's Cotswold Models based model and the Gibson version posted above look the part and capture the look and character of the prototype loco.

Cheers,

Dave.

You shouldn't scale from drawings Larry, especially ones that have been enlarged/reduced. When I worked in the drawing office at ICI every drawing had "do not scale" writ large. We worked on the assumption that machinists etc would use the dimensions.

 

Ed

Larry has already posted a response to this comment, but at the risk of hijacking Larry's thread, I'd just like to explore Ed's comment a bit further.

As a professional engineer, I agree with the principle stated, in particular in the manufacture of real life, functional equipment. However, here we are concerned with small scale models where we are aiming for realistic looking cosmetic representations of real items. So called "scale" drawings published for modelling purposes are frequently of dubious accuracy, whether or not they've been re-sized. Even when drawings of a high degree of accuracy are available to modellers, such as the excellent Wild Swan locomotive profile books (a growing, but relatively limited range of ex-LMS locomotives), which contain reproductions of the original engineering drawings, or where similar drawings are obtained from the York Museum, the drawings available are generally limited to general arrangements, pipe & rod and maybe some valve gear, bogie, pony truck drawings, etc. These are assembly drawings which show some key dimensions, such as axle spacings, cylinder centres, overall lengths, widths and heights, but they do not show every dimension or full details of component parts. So, even here, most dimensions can only be established by scaling the drawing from known dimensions. The exception may be where a full size example is available for detailed measurement, but that route is not open to many modellers and even full sized preserved examples may have been subject to modifications or replacement of parts by non-authentic items (just look at the injectors fitted to most preserved Bulleid pacifics).

So, in my view, if we stuck rigidly to Ed's principle, there would be virtually no models of railway items in existance. I'm not sure how serious Ed was, but perhaps he could indicate how many models he has made where no dimensions were assumed or scaled?

Happy modelling to all - and keep scaling!

Dave.

Peter,

The buildings look super - well up to your usual standards. Sorry to read about the camra problems. Hope it's soon sorted.

Dave.

Wow! Laser levelling - and I thought spirit levels were high-tech. No doubt you have to work quickly so the legs don't get cut of!!!!!

Dave.

Picture an overcast damp Sunday afternoon in cottonopolis, the heady mix of soot, boiled potatoes and cabbage in the air mixing with the smell of chicken feed off the allotments. The clanking of an Austerity 2-8-0 drowns out Ruby Murray on Forces Favourites as it drifts down grade light engine across the fields towards the shed at Lees. It might have been a scene that had unfolded a million times for most folk, but to an enthusiast, it was the beginning of a new wave.......The damned WD's were moving in to take replace "our" Austin Sevens!

Larry,

I find it hard to believe anyone lamented Austin Sevens being replaced by the superb WD's. I mean, the clank of the rods....pure music to the ears!! Axle boxes and crank pins that did what it said on the tin!!

Dave.

Steve,

Thanks for the clarification. I've been to Lime Street a few times in the past, but hadn't realised there is the arrangement you describe - an unused platform face forming a siding.

Anyway, I'm glad it wasn't some sort of oversight or error in measurement - although I'm sure everything has been checked meticulously before cutting material!

Dave.

Phil,

I hope larry doesn't think we've hijacked his thread!

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, the 4F's were equiped with short travel Stephenson's gear whereas the Austin 7's had modern, long travel, Walschaert's. Might be able to use the con rods and cross-heads/slide bars from the BM kit, but that would be it. I did start to draw the gear out with a view to getting it etched but didn't get very far. Unfortunately, I don't have CAD and that's definately the way to go, these days. perhaps there's a kind benefactor out there?

The real things were let down by having the standard, inadequate 4F axle-boxes and crank pins - which had a tendency to snap off - hence the early demise of these locos compared with the Super D's which they were supposed to replace.

Back to Larry's model, hopefully. Any progress with the laborious manual paint removal and re-painting? At least these were very plain locos, so not too many fiddley bits to work round (on the body, at least).

Dave.

I must say how much I'm enjoying following progress with this marvellous project. It's one of those inspirational mega-layouts which seem to be under way these days - Ron Heggs Manchester Central and Jim Smith Wright's Birmingham New Street on RMweb and Roy Jackson's Retford (not on here) are other examples that come readily to mind. What impresses most about all these is not just the scale and ambition of the undertaking, but the incredible attention to detail and superb standard of modelling being achieved. Perhaps it's no coincidence, they're all models of real places?

I'm particularly enjoying seeing the signals - for reasons that Steve will appreciate! (Those miniature semaphores will be more visible on Delph.....!)

One thing which does strike me from the station photos is how close to the platform edge the central roof support columns appear to be and I wonder if this is correct or they not yet in their final position?

Looking forward to further installments with eager anticipation.

Cheers,

Dave.

Larry,

I must say I was never very keen on these locos at the time - rather plain and ugly to my young eyes. I'm sure they used to plod past our garden at the bottom of Goddard(!) Street on the old OA&GB.

When they were the mainstay of freight at Lees, do you think they ever ventured to Delph. One will on my version! - 49509, I think I've gone for - got the smokebox number and shed plates.

I've gone for the Alan Gibson etched brass kit, which does look very good (in the flat!). I've been putting off thoughts of construction till I figure out how best to replicate the inside valve gear. To me, this is a problem with all high pitched boiler, inside cylinder locos like these and the L&Y 0-6-0's.

Any way, I'm sure yours will look just great after its transformation into (grimy?) BR unlined black!

Cheers,

Dave.

Hi Dave......pleased you like the idea of the thread, some of the panels are complete works of art, I'm so envious. Yours sounds exciting too.

Off to Silverstone for the weekend on Thursday this week....MotoGP and Mr Rossi are in town.

Thanks for your comments..............Bob.

Mmmmm...I'm very envious. I'll be glued to the telly but it won't be the same. They just need to get that Duke sorted and then we'll see if Stoner the Moaner really is the quickest. Err, sorry, very off topic....

I've just followed your link to the Fairfield Junction thread. It's looking good, but I can see the control panel requirements would be rather more onerous than my simple effort. Perhaps if you're fully DCC committed, the computerised route, as per Beast66606 is the best.

Dave.

Bob,

Thanks for starting this subject. A bit like you, I'm in the process of building my first layout (Delph in blog forum) and although I've fully wired up two of the base-boards, I've yet to face up to the control panel, so the ideas here are really useful.

I suppose the panel arrangement is dependant on the style of layout and method of operation (fixed/portable, DC/DCC, in front/behind the layout, single man operation or separate signallers/drivers, etc.) In my view, whichever arrangement is used - and the posts already cover some very good aisdea/solutions) one pre-requisite is neatness, so I am particullarly impressed by Missy and Gordon H's panels. Besides just "being right", I'm sure it makes fault finding/mainttenance that much easier than wires going everywhere.

I've had some thoughts on my panel, generally as follows:

My model is intended to be an exhibition layout, consisting of a single track branch terminus operated by push-pull trains, normal passenger and pick-up freights. It will be operated by a signaller-driver from one end (near the station buffer stops) at the front of the layout, with a casette type fiddle yard at the other end, hidden from the operators view. The layout can be operated by either DCC (normal), for traction current only, or cab control DC (for testing new locos, visitors, etc.). Points and signals which would be controlled from the signal box will be operated from the panel, whilst yard points operated by ground levers and the AJ uncoupling magnets are operated from swithes/buttons mounted in the front edge of the layout, local to the item they operate. Thus the shunting driver will walk up and down the length of the layout with his loco.

There will be a separate, floor mounted power supply box feeding the required inputs to the control panel. The panel itself will have the signal box diagram at the top, below which is the lever frame (actually just electrical swithes with the correct colour handle covers). These are in the correct sequence and normal and reversed positions, per prototype practice. Below these, there will be rotary swithes to select DCC (all control plug in points) of one of 2 DC sections (platform road and everything else) and DIN plug sockets fro DCC or DC controllers. (There are also controller sockets in the facial board for the yard operator.). There will be the box bell code equipment to communicate with the fiddle yard (rest of the world!). Im also intending to include a CC-TV screen to allow the operator to see the fiddle yard and some sort of DCC loco address describer so the operator knows which loco and which way it is facing for DCC operation.

All very well in theory, I just hope I can realise it and it works!

Good luck with your project (and the bike racing?).

Dave.

The Comet coupled wheelbase is also stretched to accommodate OO wheel flanges. For my P4 model (which pre-dates the Bradwell chassis), I used Alan Gibson milled mainframes and associated coupling rods, which have the correct spacing (but i don't know if Colin still supplies these) and a mixture of DJH and Comet components for the valve gear. One problem with a dead scale wheelbase is that, like the real thing, the brake hangers have to be located between the back of the wheels and the frames, with the brake blocks mounted on an upward facing massive casting/forging to bring them in line with the wheel treads. The Bradwell kit replicates this, of course but the DJH & Comet just provide conventional etched hangers/brake blocks. As already said, Dave's kit is in every way more accurate and superior to the other approaches, but you might have to make some modifications to the expansion link support brackets, because I seem to recall these (or at least the LH one, with the reversing gear) are somewhat different on the Crosti locos. Good luck with it, whichever route you choose. Please keep us posted of progress. Dave.